why are we wasting time in iraq - Page 8

There is also the tiny little matter of the 17+ UNSR resolutions failed to comply with.

Care to name them?.
I hear a lot about these "other" resolutions but I have only ever seen some rather tenuous arguments over missile production as an example.

Quote:

If the UN is too lame to enforce it's own resolutions, then someone has to, or the UN just goes out of business.

I think you are jumping to conclusions, it wasnt a matter of the UN being too lame to enforce its resolutions it was a case of them not believing the evidence you put to them as enough justification to enforce the rules, oddly enough you seem happy to simply pass that off now as "had what turned out to be bad intel".

May 14th, 2005

Gunner13

Ok, let's try this (probably a few mistakes here, but you get the point )

707 - 15 August 1991. Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.

712 - 19 September 1991.
Rejects the Secretary-General's suggestion that at least $2 billion in oil revenue be made available for humanitarian needs; instead allows total sale of $1.6 billion. Eventually rejected by Government of Iraq.

715 - 11 October 1991. Approves the plans of Unscom and the IAEA, including for long term monitoring. Iraq agreed to the monitoring system established by this resolution on 26 November 1993.

949 - 15 October 1994. "Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.

986 - 14 April 1995. New "oil for food" resolution, allowing $1 billion in oil sales every 90 days. Memorandum of understanding signed by UN and Government of Iraq on 20 May 1996; Phase I begins on 10 December 1996.

1051 - 27 March 1996. Establishes mechanism for long-term monitoring of potentially "dual use" Iraqi imports and exports, as called for by SCR 715.

1060 - 12 June 1996. On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.

1115 - 21 June 1997. "Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "demands that they cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".

1134 - 23 October 1997. Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues.

1194 - 9 September 1998. "Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.

1205 - 5 November 1998. Echoes SCR 1194, demands that the Iraqi government "provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with inspectors and alludes to the threat to "international peace and security" posed by the non-cooperation.

1441 - 8 November 2002. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687.

I jump to no conclusions - the League of Nations was ineffective and went out of business partly because it could not enforce anything and could be ignored. If nations want the UN to help mediate disputes and keep the peace, then they have to back it up, or act for it when it lacks backbone or determination. Otherwise if becomes an irrelavant debating society.

Note that the US worked overtime to go thru the UN and work with other nations. What we got for our pains was a lot of pious nonsense from double dealing countries (France and Russia) that stood to gain more from the deals that Saddam was working than complying with international law and UNSR Resolutions THEY VOTED FOR.

May 14th, 2005

Chocobo_Blitzer

Seems like it was all a matter of "interpretation" of resolution 1441, if you think France, China, and Russia interpreted it correctly, then well, the coalition did an illegal invasion. Course some folks say they interpreted it that way because they had lots of money invested in Iraq. Then you can flip it the other way around, with the US wanting to help themselves economically and slap tags on the rest of the coalition as "coerced" or "disillusioned" or whatever.

I personally think both sides were working on a vague technicality. But that the coalition was ultimately in the right because the goals were positive. Positive for Iraq, not so much for this scarred generation, but for the generations to come. For the middle-east, perhaps, because of the possibility of a "democracy domino", not to mention the local threat of the Saddam's Ba'ath government and the instability it created. And the coalition.... perhaps must settle with what chaos they stopped, including whatever the future may have brought.

--

May 14th, 2005

MontyB

Thats simply a list of resolutions that involve Iraq, some of them Iraq complied with through force in the Gulf war ie 660 and 687, the bulk of them are "reafirming obligations" and modifying the oil for food program which isnt really earth shattering stuff.

The worst area of that list would be the area between June 1996 and December 1999 where they refused entry to inspection teams however the readmission of UN teams in 2002 after resolution 1441 should have more than covered those issues.

Quote:

I jump to no conclusions - the League of Nations was ineffective and went out of business partly because it could not enforce anything and could be ignored. If nations want the UN to help mediate disputes and keep the peace, then they have to back it up, or act for it when it lacks backbone or determination. Otherwise if becomes an irrelavant debating society.

Yes indeed however you have to understand that just because the US puts a case forward doesnt mean that it is actually right nor does it mean that the world has to accept it as right.
The UN cannot be expected to be effective when one of the parties involved is going to do what it wants regardless of the UNs decissions and quite frankly it doesnt matter whether that party is Iraq or the US.

Quote:

Note that the US worked overtime to go thru the UN and work with other nations.

Yes and it still didnt convince them now given the benefit of hindsight it would appear that the UN made the right call.

Essentially the case I am hearing constantly from Americans boils down to one of "The US wanted it therefore the UN should have rubberstamped it and because it didnt it is worthless".
Unfortunately if its only option is to agree with the US or be worthless then no matter what it chose it would still be worthless.

May 14th, 2005

Gunner13

OK, you wanted me to list the UNSCR that Iraq violated, I did and now you dismiss them. If the US really didn't care about world opinion and we are the bullies that certain circles make us out to be, why would we keep going back to the UN?

We sought and gained the approval of the recognized world body and the international community BEFORE we acted. How is this a rubber stamp?

1441 is pretty clear that if Saddam did not comply that there would be serious consequences and the Security Council voted for that. France and Russia tried to weasel out after the US and the Coalition of the Willing made it clear they would act, if I recall correctly. We are now finding out WHY they didn't want their cozy, profitable and illegal deals with Saddam & Company to end.

If an order to comply has no force behind it, then it is meaningless. You keep dancing around this point and not acknowledging it as if it's OK to do whatever with NO consequences.

Have you ever tried rasing a child or training a dog or another pet this way? The results will not be to your liking

May 14th, 2005

SwordFish_13

HI,

Iraq Didn't Comply with UN resolutions So did America

Peace
-=SF_13=-

May 14th, 2005

Damien435

America: "You have two options. Option A, you give us what we want."

France, Russia, and China: "And Option B?"

America: "We take it. The choice is yours.."

Is that what it sounds like to non-US citizens, be honest, do you view the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as the US bullying around other countries?

This is my perspective on it. I would much rather that we had invaded North Korea and remove Kim Jung-Il as he is by far worse than Saddam when it comes to being an evil dictator, but then we have to contend with China and the United States decided that Kim was not worth a Nuclear Confrontation with China. The US is not infallibe and we are not all powerful. Our military has limits just like everyone else, we can not be everywhere doing everything at once. Do I think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do? No. But there are different degrees of right and wrong. Invading Iraq, that was wrong, but letting the Iraqi's suffer under 12 years of UN sanctions after Bush Sr. decided to pull out American troops in hopes of gaining support in his race for re-election, that was even more wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, but given the two options, lift sanctions or invasion, I think the US made the right choice. (Don't try to twist my words to make it look like I just called the invasion of Iraq righteous.) I still maintain my opinion that in the future I see Iraq has a prosperous republic able to rule itself and the leader of the Muslim world, which ironically enough was one of Saddam's goals.

If you disagree with me keep it to yourself, if you think I am right be kind and call me a freakin genious.

(just kidding on the last part guys and gals)

May 15th, 2005

MontyB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunner13

OK, you wanted me to list the UNSCR that Iraq violated, I did and now you dismiss them. If the US really didn't care about world opinion and we are the bullies that certain circles make us out to be, why would we keep going back to the UN?

We sought and gained the approval of the recognized world body and the international community BEFORE we acted. How is this a rubber stamp?

1441 is pretty clear that if Saddam did not comply that there would be serious consequences and the Security Council voted for that. France and Russia tried to weasel out after the US and the Coalition of the Willing made it clear they would act, if I recall correctly. We are now finding out WHY they didn't want their cozy, profitable and illegal deals with Saddam & Company to end.

If an order to comply has no force behind it, then it is meaningless. You keep dancing around this point and not acknowledging it as if it's OK to do whatever with NO consequences.

Have you ever tried rasing a child or training a dog or another pet this way? The results will not be to your liking

Indeed I did ask and in all fairness you are the only one who has been able to provide them however you have to also accept that Iraq met some of those resolutions ie the demand to leave Iraq and the ceasefire with coalition forces (admittedly they didnt do it volunteerily) and at least 3 of those resolutions deal with alterations to the food for oil program which I dont think anyone could possibly consider earth shattering stuff.

The real and only resolution that applies here is 1441 as it is the last in the line of resolutions demanding a return to inspections "or else" which like it or not Iraq did comply with which oddly enough the UN weapons inspectors said was a real possibility.

Quote:

f an order to comply has no force behind it, then it is meaningless. You keep dancing around this point and not acknowledging it as if it's OK to do whatever with NO consequences.

I am not dancing around it at all I have now and always will maintain that the problem was not that the UN would not have enforced the resolution it was that it didnt accept that the US's "evidence" was enough to warrant enforcing the resolution and like it or not hindsight has proven the UN was right not to enforce it.

It strikes me is that where we disagree is you believe that because the resolution threatened force it became mandatory for it to be used and I believe that the UN chose to operate on a "convince us that it needs to be used first" policy which is the way I would hope the UN would operate.

I will now acknowledge that it is not ok to do whatever you want with no consequences but I also believe that until a case is PROVEN to those judging it a verdict can not be rendered.

Quote:

America: "You have two options. Option A, you give us what we want."

France, Russia, and China: "And Option B?"

America: "We take it. The choice is yours.."

Is that what it sounds like to non-US citizens, be honest, do you view the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 as the US bullying around other countries?

I think you are partially correct in your post however its not as one sided as you make it, by the end of the process France was not going to play ball either it had reached the point where you have two parties who had painted themselves into a corner (The US was going to war come hell or high water and France was going to veto it regardless).

May 15th, 2005

A Can of Man

Actually all parties had agreed if Saddam did not comply, there would be "severe consequences" for him. This actually meant going to war since they had already slapped sanctions on him.
But when the moment of truth came, everyone except the US and the UK backed up on the agreement. Suddenly the UN was trying to veto something it even started... a UN resolution "rubbished" by the UN.
So it was a bit more complicated.

May 15th, 2005

MontyB

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Actually all parties had agreed if Saddam did not comply, there would be "severe consequences" for him. This actually meant going to war since they had already slapped sanctions on him.
But when the moment of truth came, everyone except the US and the UK backed up on the agreement. Suddenly the UN was trying to veto something it even started... a UN resolution "rubbished" by the UN.
So it was a bit more complicated.

This is getting silly now.

Quote:

Actually all parties had agreed if Saddam did not comply, there would be "severe consequences" for him. This actually meant going to war since they had already slapped sanctions on him.

Yes but the resolution is not in question here, IF Saddam didnt comply there would be "serious consequences" which more than likely meant war no arguments here.
The argument is not in the resolution itself but whether the UN felt that Saddam was in compliance (or near enough to compliance), the US put its case forward and the UN weapons inspection teams put their case forward and in the end the UN chose to accept its own inspectors over the US.
Now the inspection teams didnt say that Iraq was in compliance they said that there was no evidence that they werent and requested more time to complete the job.

So please understand that just because the resolution had a clause that allowed for war it didnt make war inevitable.